But what is the point of having structures if they are not audible? If the structure of music can't be heard isn't the result effectively perceived as unstructured / chaotic / random sounding music?Well as Jim intimates, the inner workings are vital for the composer, especially when working in expanded tonality and atonality. The processes used yield the expression and the listener needs to be able to listen in a different way when a tune is not present. The structures aren't ordinarily meant to be discernible and the impression of randomness although understandable from a superficial pov, is often an illusion based on unfamiliarity or aversion.
The question is how reliable such accounts are. In this case a composer, a conductor and a musicologist (people who should be experts in the field) found appreciation for bubbles. Does this make the piece good?As always, some listening effort is often rewarded with a deeper understanding and appreciation, as many a TC'er here will testify.
Bubbles was actually made in 2005. Comitas made the piece as a reaction to the fact, that in the Netherlands composers who don't conform to the atonal aesthetic are mostly denied funding.I don't actually like that kind of music much but I do find the idea that "modern atonal music is what usually gets promoted nowadays" to be interesting. Did he step out of a time machine from 1965?
Bubbles was supposed to showcase the absurdity of this mentality.
From my experience the situation is similar in other western european countries. It may be different in America though.